Is Peter Townshend Really a Criminal?

self | 1-13-03 | WL-law

[WL-law]

Before we embrace the news coverage of Peter Townshend's "bust", I'd like to pose a few questions that trouble me here:

1) Aren't crimes in this area of law typically defined as requiring and/or involving "distribution" and "creation" as the core elements?

2) Townsend PURCHASED via a credit card -- he didn't sell or otherwise distribute. He wasn't in any chain of distribution or any "stream of commerce".

3)Yes he was an 'end-user' (pardon the pun), but is that, or should that be, the proper focus of the authorities? Yes, I know that purchases "fund" the criminal enterprise, but remember -- someone is trying to make you out to be a criminal because you drive an SUV based on the same logic -- so there are limits to that form of argument.

4) Are the end-users the more- or the less-culpable parties in this enterprise? Why is the focus on the end-user, then, with no mention (no intellectual curiousity,even) in the coverage of the supplier?

5)And did Peter Townshend "seek out" though surruptitious means to get this info, or did it pop up on his system unsolicited? Do statutes that criminalize "possession" presume the older days of dark alley meetings, physical swaps of material, secret "buying clubs", without an understanding of the changed circumstance of every-day, in-your-face and in-you-house solicitation through your e-mail and pop-ups? There are programs that actually TAKE OVER your computer, for God's sake, and re-rewrite your Home page so that you can't turn on your system without an avalanche of this stuff taking over. Could the drafters of the law ever have contemplated this?

6) If they have a credit card transaction then they have the seller -- although they probably have a jurisdiction problem with that party (i.e., Russia).

Having said all that, considering the scales of justice and the mens rea required for criminal conduct, how does somebody know what's legal-to-buy-but-awfully-crude-and-pornographic (i.e., S&M material, whatever else you-name-it) versus the illegal stuff? I'm sure there's no warning label at the site he visited, for instance. And one might assume, since the local ISP isn't being prosecuted for broadcasting this stuff into your home, that it IS legal.

Am I the only one wondering if the goal here is to embarrass some high-profile public figure?

[isthisnickcool]

then Pete's in a spot of bother with the constabulary...

You bet. I just heard he was arrested.

[WL-law]

Your point 3 attempts to draw a moral equivalence between buying child porn and buying an SUV.

Not exactly -- I'm showing that that form of argument is weak at the margins. I leave open as to whether Townshend's actions are at the margins.

I did note, in a recent post, that the UK law involved was passed in 1978. That's long before the internet, which, as I've pointed out, really is a changed circumstance. But no politician is going to base his campaign on REPEALING child porn laws, is he, so the statute stays as writtern while the world changes around it. So you can expect some pretty bizarre outcomes, as I think this one is an example.

[MarkL]

Well, I can say that this sort of stuff can come to you completely unsoclicited, and this happened to me once. I followed the link to what was, without a doubt, a kiddie porn site. I made a note of the URL, and called the local office of the FBI, who referred me to the web site of the Center for Missing and Exploited Children, where I filed a report. Out of curiosity, I checked the site a few days later and found that it was no longer there.

While this stuff is sick, sometimes the government HAS gone too far in trying to entrap people, based on what the government thinks they MIGHT do. I recall a case where a man in California was suspected in being interested in child porn. The postal inspectors sent him a package of illegal kiddie porn, WHICH HE HAD NOT SOLICITED OR REQUESTED. It was shipped in an unmarked box, and when he accepted it, he was arrested for solicitation and possession of child porn, even though he had no idea what it was. Because he also ran a business from him home, he normally got packages a few times a week, so it wasn't unusual to get boxes in the mail. Eventually, the government had to drop the charges, due to the fact that he unwittingly accepted child porn that he never solicited.

Mark

[drjimmy]

As might be gathered from my screen name, I am one of Pete Townshend's biggest fans. I think he is the greatest writer of rock music, and no slouch in the performing department as well.

That being said, not much of what you ask means anything without knowing the specifics of British law. It would seem to me, however, that if he purchased child pornography, he committed a crime. I fervently hope that he is telling the absolute truth as to why he did what he did, and that it will be taken into account when and if any charges are filed.

From reading biographies of Pete's life and from statements he has made over the years, I have no doubt that he was abused as a child himself. What some consider his crowning glory, "Tommy," is all about a child who is emotionally traumatised and then abused. Interestingly, the two "Tommy" songs specifically about abuse--"Cousin Kevin" and "Fiddle About"--were written by bandmate John Entwistle at Pete's request. Perhaps the topics were just too close to Pete's own experience for him to write about.

The bottom line is that I would never excuse Pete if it turns out he has been looking at kiddie porn for his own jollies, let alone committing abuse himself.

[strela]

Is Peter Townshend Really a Criminal?

The title of your article is misleading. He hasn't been convicted of anything ... yet. There is almost no one seriously calling Pete Townshend a "criminal" at this early juncture.

[WL-law]

By the way, while I was typing my last reply two unsolicited pop-ups jumped onto my screen. One was trying to sell me a "spy-camera" with a kinky implication. I closed the windows but whatever image appeared is on my hard-drive -- no, I don't think I'll re-format MY WHOLE HARD DRIVE just to get rid of it, and I won;t throw my computer away either. But -- what if that image was "child-porn", however it was defined in the UK statute? Apparently I would still 'possess' it on my hard drive and be a criminal. Who knew!

The absurdity reminds me of the line in Mamet's Glengarry Glen Ross where, after on crime planner tells a fellow worker of his plan and the fellow worker declines to join in, the crime planner says "It's too late -- you listened. You're a part of it now. You'll be just as guilty as us..."

[Rain-maker]

Funny how a electrons flowing thru a wire in a certain pattern can get you prison time.

So when does the Fed mass email child porn to all viewed as opposition and sentences them to hard labor at a prison factory?

Maybe this is good fix for lagging economy, and you won't need a draft either.

[WL-law]

The title of your article is misleading. He hasn't been convicted of anything ... yet. There is almost no one seriously calling Pete Townshend a "criminal" at this early juncture.

Oh really! Well answer me this -- would you want to be in his shoes right now, and more importantly, based on the representative sample that we see here on FR, what kind of shape do you think your/his reputation will be in if the prosecution, after all this publicity, declines to press charges? His life is ruined, don't you think, either way?

[strela]

would you want to be in his shoes right now

Nope.

based on the representative sample that we see here on FR, what kind of shape do you think your/his reputation will be in if the prosecution, after all this publicity, declines to press charges?

Probably pretty bad. However, my point was that he has been convicted of nothing yet, and people are essentially innocent until proven guilty, even in Britain. As for his reputation, I have no control over gossip or what other people think, and refuse to be held responsible for it.

His life is ruined, don't you think, either way?

I wouldn't say that. Michael Jackson certainly isn't wondering where his next meal is coming from.

[WL-law]

...people are essentially innocent until proven guilty, even in Britain. As for his reputation, I have no control over gossip or what other people think, and refuse to be held responsible for it.

Well, we're talking public policy here, not what you personally can do. Part of public policy is reasonable laws, and another part is proper prosecutorial discretion in the application of the laws.

We now know that Townshend has been arrested, and we know the essence of the "crime" he's committed.

The law is a 1978 law, so it certainly does not envision the internet and the aggressive, push-in-your-face, pop-up world of every kind of imaginable porn that never dared show its face before (well, maybe except in Amsterdam and Copenhagen). And "possession" meant something entirely different before the 'permanent' possession that equates with your hard-drive, i.e., even after you "discard" something you still, through some ghostly bits of magnetism, still 'possess' it.

So -- it seems at a minimum that a large amount of prosecutorial discretion is needed immediately, as well as a revisiting or redefining of some existing laws.

We will have to see whether, in the end, what's going on now is good public policy or a fiasco and a circus. I'm thinking it will be the latter..

[new cruelty]

4) Are the end-users the more- or the less-culpable parties in this enterprise? Why is the focus on the end-user, then, with no mention (no intellectual curiousity,even) in the coverage of the supplier?

And one might assume, since the local ISP isn't being prosecuted for broadcasting this stuff into your home, that it IS legal.

The provider of this muck, in Pete's case, was based in Fort Worth, Texas and was busted sometime last year. Pete's name and thousands of others were noted as having purchased or subscribed to this site. From what I've read (and I'll dig it up if you'd like to read it), authorities from the U.S. and U.K. are working together.

[wtc911]

You keep dancing around the facts to meet your own agenda. Your boy solicited child pornography. He has admitted so in the press. It was not sent unsolicited. He looked for it, found it, ordered it and paid for it...again by his own statements in the press.

I know of no decent people anywhere who allow or excuse even the slighest sexual use of or insult to children. I really question your personal morality.

[WL-law]

It was not sent unsolicited

You don't know that. Isn't everyone's common experience of the web that we are CONSTANTLY solicited? So what makes you think that this transaction didn't begin with a solicitation?

[SunnyUsa]

My thoughts yesteday when I heard this news story were that he's the openly? (or is he?) gay Rocker of the WHO --- really a wacko from what I remember (didn't he wish he was a woman too, or he's a woman trapped in a man's body?)

I think he's a sicko who needed even sicker stuff - how gross could he get

...I mean this is the man-boy stuff isn't it?

This is devastating news to THE WHO, I mean now when you hear their music, is this the image they want people thinking of?

[Afronaut]

WL-law, OJ: Guily or Innocent?

[Fhotobuff]

 

[new cruelty]

'OJ: Guily or Innocent? '

i vote guily beyond a reasonable dout

;)

[Uncle Meat]

Pete's more than likely guilty and I don't buy his silly excuse,I wish he'd just come clean and admit he has a problem and get help before he acts out on his compulsion.I'd expect this of Elton John or Michael Jackson,but not him.Hell,Jackson is allowed to this day to collect kids and do whatever his sick mind wants to do with them.Hopefully Pete just got caught with pics and never did anything further than that.I know it may be wishful thinking.I'm a pretty big Who fan myself.

[WL-law]

WL-law, OJ: Guily or Innocent?

Of course he was guilty (BTW I provided the OJ prosecutors with some legal advice that they ended up using - in a totally botched way -- in the closing arguments!). Now tell me the nexus to Townshend, because it certainly isn't apparent to me.

[Kevin Curry]

His life is ruined, don't you think, either way?

Not at all. There will be shortage of sycophants and enablers such as yourself to ensure he is comfortable and fawned over the rest of his lfe.